LIBRARY, “ * " Cvttscs E-I27-6M-L180 TEXAS AERICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR I COLLEGE sqwnon. BRAZOS COUNTY. TEXAS BULLETIN NO. 511 \ SEPTEMBER, 1935 DIVISION OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING Progress in the Study of the Mechanical Harvesting of Cotton A, '3.- /’I_IB|?lQIQ‘( Agrieuiturai 8i Mechanica! Colleefi 01m" {inflame Station. Tflafifi- AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS T. O. WALTON, President STATION STAFF’! Administration : A. B. Conner, M. S., Director R. E. Karper, M. S., Vice Director Clarice Mixson, B. A., Secretary M. P. Holleman, Chief Clerk D. R. McDonald, Asst. Chief Clerk Chester Higgs, Executive Assistant Howard Berry, B. S., Technical Asst. Chemistry: G. S. Fraps, Ph. D., Chief; State Chemist S. E. Asbury, M. S., Chemist J. F. Fudge, Ph. D., Chemist E. C. Carlyle, M. S., Asst. Chemist T. L. Ogier, B. S., Asst. Chemist A. J. Sterges, M. S., Asst. Chemist Ray Treichler, M. S., Asst. Chemist W. H. Walker, Asst. Chemist Velma Graham, Asst. Chemist . Jeanne F. DeMottier, Asst. Chemist W. H. Garman, M. S., Asst Chemist A. R. Kemmerer, Ph. D., Asst. Chemist A. W. Walde, Ph.D., Asst. Chemist F. J. McClure, Ph. D., Asst. Chemist Horticulture : S. H. Yarnell, Sc. D., Chief Range Animal Husbandry: J. M. Jones, A. M. Chief B. L. Warwick, Ph. D., Breeding Investiga. S. P. Davis, Wool and Mohair Specialist J. H. Jones, B. S., Animal Husbandman Entomology: F. L. Thomas, Ph. D., Chief: State Entomologist H. J. Reinhard, B. S., Entomologist R. K. Fletcher, Ph. D., Entomologist W. L. Owen, Jr., M. S., Entomologist J. N. Roney, M. S., Entomologist J. C. Gaines, Jr., M. S., Entomologist S. E. Jones, M. S., Entomologist F. F. Bibby, B. S., Entomologist "R. W. Moreland, B. S., Asst. Entomologist C. E. Heard, B. S., Chief Inspector C. J. Burgin, B. S., Foulbrood Inspector Agronomy: E. B. Reynolds, Ph. D., Chief R. E. Karper, M. S., Agronomist P. C. Mangelsdorf, Sc. D., Agronomist D. T. Killough, M. S., Agronomist J. O. Beasley, M. S., Asst. Agronomist Publications: A. D. Jackson, Chief Veterinary Science: ‘M. Francis, D. V. M., Chief H. Schmidt, D. V. M., Veterinarian "F. P. Mathews, D. V. M., M. S., Veterinarian Plant Pathology and Physiology: J. J. Taubenhaus, Ph. D., Chief W. N. Ezekiel, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist L. B. Loring, M. S., Asst. Plant Pathologist G. E. Altstatt, M. S., Asst. Plant Pathologist "Glenn Boyd, B. S., Asst. Plant Pathologist Farm and Ranch Economics: L. P. Gabbard, M. S., Chief W. E. Paulson, Ph. D., Marketing C. A. Bonnen, M. S., Farm Management I"W. R. Nisbet, B. S., Ranch Management "A. C. Magee, M. S., Farm Management Rural Home Research: Jessie Whitacre, Ph. D., Chief Mary Anna Grimes, M. S., Textiles Sylvia Cover, Ph. D., Foods Soil Survey: "W. T. Carter, B. S., Chief E. H. Templin, B. S., Soil Surveyor J. W. Huckabee, B. S., Soil Surveyor I. C. Mowery, B. S., Soil Surveyor Botany: V. L. Cory, M. S., Acting Chief Swine Husbandry: Fred Hale, M. S., Chief Dairy Husbandry: O. C. Copeland, M. S., Dairy Husbandman Poultry Husbandry: R. M. Sherwood, M. S., Chief J. R. Couch, M. S., Assoc. Poultry Husb. Paul D. Sturkie, B. S., Asst. Poultry Husb. Agricultural Engineering: H. P. Smith, M. S., Chief Main Station Farm: G .T. McNess, Superintendent Apiculture (San Antonio): H. B. Parks, B. S., Chief A. H. Alex, B. S., Queen Breeder Feed Control Service: F. D. Fuller, M. ‘S., Chief James Sullivan, Asst. Chief. . D. Pearce, Secretary H. Rogers, Feed Inspector . L. Kirkland, B. S., Feed Inspector . D. Reynolds, Jr., Feed Inspector . A. Moore, Feed Inspector J. Wilson, B. S., Feed Inspector . G. Wickes, D. V. M., Feed Inspector J. K. Francklow, Feed Inspector mnmwnyw SUBSTATIONS No. 1. Beeviile. Bee County: R. A. Hall, B. S., Superintendent No. 2, Tyler, Smith County: P. R. Johnson, M. S., Superintendent "B. H. Hendrickson, B. S., Sci. in Soil Erosion "R. W. Baird, M. S., Assoc. Agr. Engineer No. 3, Angleton, Brazoria County: - R. H. Stansel, M. S., Superintendent H. M. Reed, B. S., Horticulturist No. 4, Jefferson County: _ R. H. Wyche, B. S., Superintendent "H. M. Beachell, B. S., Junior Agronomist No. 5, Temple, Bell County: Henry Dunlavy, M. S., Superintendent C. H. Rogers, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist H. E. Rea, B. S., Agronomist "E. B. Deeter, B. S., Soil Erosion "P. L. Hopkins, B. S., Junior No. 6 Denton, Denton County: P. B. Dunkle, M. S., Superintendent "I. M. Atkins, B. S., Junior Agronomist No. 7. Spur, Dickens County: R. E. Dickson, B. S., Superintendent B. C. Langley, M. S., Agronomist No. 8, Lubbock, Lubbock County: . Jones, Superintendent Frank Gaines. Irrig. and Forest Nurs. No. 9, Balmorhea, Reeves County: J. J. Bayles, B. S., Superintendent No. 10, College Station, Brazos County: R. M. Sherwood, M. S., In Charge L. J. McCall, Farm Superintendent No. ll, Nacogdoches, Nacogdoches County: . F. Morris, M. S. Superintendent "No. l2, Chiilicothe, Hardeman County: "J. R. Quinby, M. S. Superintendent "J. C. Stephens, M. A., Asst. Agronomist No. l4, Sonora, Sutton-Edwards Counties: W. H. Dameron, B. S., Superintendent I. B. Boughton, D. V. M., Veterinarian W. T. Hardy, D. V. M., Veterinarian O. L. Carpenter, Shepherd "O. G. Babcock, B. S., Asst. Entomologist No. 15, Weslaco, Hidalgo County: Civil Enlineér W. H. Friend, B. S., Superintendent S. W. Clark, B. S., Entomologist W. J. Bach, M. S., Plant Pathologist J. F. Wood. B. S., Horticulturist No. 16. Iowa Park, Wichita County: C. H. McDowell, B. S., Superintendent L. E. Brooks, B. S., Horticulturist No. 19, Winterhaven, Dimmit County: E. Mortensen, B. S., Superintendent "L. R. Hawthorn, M. S., Horticulturist Members of Teaching Staff Carrying Cooperative Projects on the Station: G. W. Adriance, Ph. D., Horticulture S. W. Bilsing, Ph. D., Entomology D. Seoates, A. E., Agricultural Engineering A. K. Mackey, M. S., Animal Husbandry R. G. Reeves, Ph. D., Biology J. S. Mogford, M. 8., Agronomy F. R. Brison, M. S., Horticulture ‘Dean, School of Veterinary Medicine. W. R. Horlacher, Ph. D., Genetics J. H. Knox, M. S., Animal Husbandry A. L. Darnell, M. A., Dairy Husbandry R. 0. Berry, B. S., Biology R. T. Stewart, Ph.D., Agronomy V. A. Little, M. S., Entomology TAs of September 1, 1985 "In cooperation with U. S. Department of Agriculture. fln eooperation with Texas Extension Service. ‘In cooperation with State Department of Agriculture. This Bulletin reports results of harvesting trials with a roll- type stripper sled, using different kinds and sizes of stripping rolls operated at different angles and speeds. Stripping rolls made of steel and wood having a slightly roughened surface gave a high efficiency in harvesting cotton. Rolls 56 inches in length, operated at an angle between 25 and 30 degrees with the ground, and hav- ing a peripheral travel faster than that of the forward travel of the tractor, were the most efficient of the different combinations of roll angles and speeds. Stripping rolls 2-3/ 16 inches in diameter were more satisfactory than rolls 3 inches in diameter. The results of tests with the Texas Station Harvester show that the highest percentage of the cotton was harvested when a high roll speed was used. In harvesting Ducona cotton the rubber rolls harvested 96.8 per cent of the cotton, while wood harvested 92.0 per cent, steel 95.3 per cent, and knurled surfaced steel 96.2 per cent. Wood and steel rolls werei not as efficient in har- vesting as rubber rolls and knurled steel rolls. In cleaning mechanically harvested cotton in 1934 the Texas Station Bur Extractor and the Texas Station Cylinder‘ Cleaner removed foreign material amounting to approximately 50 per cent of the weight of the harvested cotton. This foreign material consisted of burs, green bolls, dirt, and trash. Ducona cotton cleaned on the Texas Station Bur Extractor and on the Texas Station Cylinder Cleaner, classed two grades higher than when extracted and cleaned with available commercial bur extracting and cleaning equipment. The highest efficiency of the Texas Station Harvester was ob- tained in harvesting varieties with short fruiting branches, short vegetative branches, and storm-resistant bolls. Satisfactory progress "has been made in developing through hybridization and selection higher yielding strains of cotton adapted to mechanical harvesting. A number of promising hy- brid strains which are being inbred to fix the type desired gave good results in harvesting trials. Ducona was one of the better strains. The types sought should possess storm-resistant bolls, a relatively high percentage of lint of good staple, a minimum of vegetative growth, a more determinate fruiting habit, and earliness of maturity, characters which most of the commercial varieties do not possess. CONTENTS Page Introduction H 1 C . _ . . _ _ . . ¢ _ . A 1 _ _ , W 5 Construction of Equipment , - 6 Results with Harvesting Equipment ................................................................ s 11 R011 Type Sled Harvester ___________________________________ ~11 Texas Station Cotton Harvester ..................................................................... e14 Cleaning Mechanically Harvested Cotton ‘with Commercial Gin Equip- ment and with the Texas Station Bur Extractor and the Texas Sta- tion Cylinder Cleaner ............ -119 Relation of Varietal Characteristics to Efficiency of Harvesting and Cleaning Machinery 25 Progress in Developing Varieties to Meet the Needs of Mechanical Harvesting __________________________ __ , . _ . _ _ i _ . _ . . . —~32 Acknowledgments . _ . . _ . . . . _ C C . _ . , . _ . . n33 Summary and Conclusions ................................................................................... __ 34 BULLETIN NO. 511 SEPTEMBER, 1935 PROGRESS IN THE STUDY QF THE MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON H. P. SMITH, D. T. KILLOUGH, D. L. JONES AND M. H. BYROM The results of previous studies on the mechanical harvesting of cotton, to determine some of the essential principles involved in the construction and operation of a successful cotton harvester of the stripper type, and the relationship of the type of cotton best suited to mechanical harvesting, were published in Texas Station Bulletin 452. This bulletin also gives a rather complete description of the construction and operation of several types of home-made cotton harvesters, and of the Texas Station Cotton Harvester. Tests conducted with the various types of machines during the period 1927-1931 inclusive show that the Texas Station Harvester was the most efficient and harvested a higher percentage of the cotton than the other types studied. When the Texas Station Cotton Harvester was constructed in 1930, the stripping rolls were made up of various sizes of radiator hose. These rolls when completed were 2-7/8 inches in diameter. In 1931 certain parts of the machine were changed and the size of the rolls was reduced to 2-3/8 inches in diameter. Harvesting tests during these two years showed that a higher percentage of cotton was harvested from the plants with the 2-3/ 8 inch rolls, than with the 2-7/ 8 inch rolls* These tests with the different size rolls, and tests with the tractor. operated in low, second, and high gears, indicated that as the size of the roll and the rate of peripheral travel of the roll changed, there was a corresponding change in the operating efficiency of the machine. Con- sequently, several questions arose which could not be answered satis- factorily from the data obtained in these tests and further investigation of this phase of the problem therefore became necessary. The questions involved may be enumerated as follows: 1. What diameter of stripping rolls would give the highest efficiency in harvesting cotton? 2. What should the peripheral speed of the rolls be in relation to the forward travel of the machine? 3. What influence would the angle of the rolls with the ground have on their efficiency in harvesting cotton? 4. Could a more durable material, such as steel or wood, be used» instead of the rubber radiator hose? ' Experiments conducted during the three years 1932, 1933, and 1934 with the Texas Station Harvester and a specially constructed Roll Type Sled have satisfactorily answered the above questions, and the results of these and other tests are reported in this bulletin. The TexaslStation Harvester was changed in construction to facilitate better operation, resulting in a more efficient machine. Special attention was also given to the problem of properly cleaning *Texas Station Bulletin 452, pages 48 and 51, tables 8 and 10. 6 ‘ BULLETIN NO, 511, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION mechanically harvested cotton. As a result of these studies the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station has invented, constructed, and tested a cotton bur extractor, and a cotton cleaner, both of which do satisfactory work in cleaning the cotton. The bur extractor removes from the har- vested cotton the burs, the green bolls, and a high percentage of the green as well as the dry leaves. The cleaner removes practically all the re- maining fine trash and dirt in the seed cotton. These machines, here- after called the Texas Station Bur Extractor and the Texas Station Cylin- der Cleaner, are described and results of tests with them are given. Breeding work was continued during 1932, 1933, and 1934 in an attempt to develop higher yielding strains of cotton of a type that may be me- chanically harvested and cleaned more satisfactorily than ordinary varieties, thereby resulting in a higher grade of lint. CONSTRUCTION OF EQUIPMENT Improvements in Texas Station Harvester: Many improvements have been made in the construction of the Texas Station Harvester (Figs. 1 Fig. 1. Texas Station Cotton Harvester harvesting Ducona cotton at College Station, October 1934. Note the type of plant and that the leaves had been eaten off by leaf-worms. Dry weather caused a rather poor yield. ' and 2) since it was described in Texas Station Bulletin 452. They may be summarized as follows: ' (1) Both the upper and lower bearing supports for the right strip- ping roll were‘ constructed to permit both ends of the roll to move freely in and out as the volume of vegetative material varies (Fig. 3). 7 PROGRESS IN STUDY OF MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 4&3 E 8% ww nwuwfiramm 20.300 compwpm wwxwm. 23 mo wanna mimic? M5393 Joumxm www£|nw>O d .wwm “mime \z_<:u mo.r<>u._u “#23... ._/<$u>_z: .mv~ 1w s? 2.. 3.“. Had mg 3s 3N §~ ma” Hm woo? é 1% mod 3. 2Q mQN wad fixm :3 5N W? .5 woo? =33-“ #5 2.” 3. m; 8a N?“ $6 $3 2N 3M mm 68m =33. 3w $4. ma. 32m 2d 2S ES mom 2N Q2.“ w» woo? om 3w 3w 3.. Si» N3 3m an...“ i: In gm mm woo? =w¢rm 9% _ 5a 3L. mom mow E3 3e mo; Hwfi Qfi. 8 woo? i... ma» $4. 3. 3m 22.. m3. mud 23 m2 Ea. 3 woo? iifim 15 :3 3. mo.” wow moo... mod 22. m: N5 mm 33m ._w\m-~ mow .34» m». mo.» Ea ma...“ m3 HNA N3 Q5 w” woo? zm 3w S; mm. Hmé gm m2 32m 8N4 5: W? i“ woo? :...Z\m|m “momma wooow ?o.H > w Emma wcEomE woommrrodm do oo ~o>o5 ? womwomuvwomous wooom. >n PEA woowownow iofioo woooom aouowfi. woo.“ uvwnmow woow Mo ammo . 5. wwfirsm “mm mo poo.“ A cH wwnooow E goo o5. >2 smwwm. pom r E wnsoow Son wo woaswmoi wo cofioo woow 85am“ fir.» 9i E5 3% mocoflzwwo 25H mioo wo Mo wowwoQ oowwnom Zoo 29S‘. mo mwcsofi om fiwwmw? wo E33» pooh mica uEoaEm 15am wid woo? woocuunm An-ooiw uo huzomoiwo 3i no wooom win .Q—MGN 6n? mo onion-win J Baum. PROGRESS IN STUDY OF MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 13 they were tested. The results are relative, and not the best that can be obtained with any of the rolls under favorable conditions. High ef- ficiency with the 2-3/ 16 inch wood rolls Was due to the slightly rough surface on the rolls and the shallow depression between them. There was a tendency for the fiber to cling to the rough surface and follow the roll around. The peripheral speed of the rolls was great enough, how- ever, to throw most of the cotton off. The cotton which was not thrown off was removed by a guard under the rolls. The smooth, polished sur- face of the 3 inch wood rolls (Fig 7) and the deeper depression between them permitted the cotton to remain on the rolls longer, which caused more of it to be pulled through with the plant (Fig 8). More bolls were crushed by the 3 inch wood rolls because they were caught farther from (Fig. 8 Cotton rows harvested with Roll Type Sled equipped with 3 inch wood rolls. Row A, showing where rolls set at 31 degrees with the ground harvested 82.6 per cent of the cotton. Row B, showing where rolls set 24 degrees with the ground harvested 90 per cent of the cotton. the stem or the base of the open boll. This not only caused more cotton to be lost, but also caused more fine trash to be ground into the lint. There was no tendency for the fiber to cling to the rolls, and no loss resulted from locks of cotton following the rolls. The 2-3/8 inch steel rolls had a smooth, polished surface similar to that of the 3 inch rolls, and had less tendency to crush the bolls. However, the smaller diameter of the rolls and the shallower depression between them caused the boll to be caught nearer the stem, and tended to snap it off 14 BULLETIN NO, 511, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION the stalk without much crushing. Having a shorter distance to travel, the cotton was also thrown out of the depression faster. The lowest percentage of trash harvested in any test was with the 3 inch wood rolls set at an angle 24 degrees and operated at high speed. An efficiency of 89.1 per cent was obtained, which is very good. This figure, however, was not as good as it appeared, because over 20 per cent of the bolls were crushed with the result that the fine trash was ground into the lint to a greater extent than in some of the tests which showed a much higher trash content. In the low speed tests, the 2-3/16 inch wood rolls gave a lower percentage of trash at the 38 and 24 degree angles“, while the steel rolls gave a slightly lower percentage at the 31 degree angle. It will be noted from Table 1 that the high speed tests all ran slightly lower in trash content than the corresponding low speed tests. The 3 inch wood rolls gave a lower percentage of trash at the 31 and 24 degree angles at high speed, while at the 38 degree angle the 2-3/ 16 inch rolls gave a low percentage. There are certain operating characteristics of the different rolls that should be noticed. The large diameter and smooth surface of the 3 inch wood rolls permitted much of the small trash, such as leaf skeletons and twigs, to slide between the rolls and drop on the ground. The same condition was true with the steel rolls, but to a less extent. The 2-3/ 16 inch wood rolls appeared to remove smaller amounts of trash because of the small area of the roll surface in contact with the plant. The lower trash content in the high speed tests might be explained by the tendency of the rolls to spread the volume of the branches while harvesting into a thin fan-like position between the rolls, permitting them to slide through without much tearing action on them. The slower speeds tend to bunch the branches and drag them through, pulling off most of the tender vegetation. Texas Station Cotton Harvester After studying the results obtained with the roll type sled, it was found desirable to make tests on a larger scale, comparable with regular harvest- ing conditions. Consequently, pairs of rolls 2-3/ 8 inches in diameter were made of wood, steel, and knurled steel to be interchanged and compared with the rubber rolls in the Texas Station Harvester. The actual operat- ing time was kept with a stop watch. The peripheral travel of the rolls was secured by mounting a special roll meter or speed counter (Fig. 9) in contact with the surface of one of the rolls. In each test the length in feet, the time required in seconds, and the peripheral travel of the roll in feet were obtained, from which the feet travel of the roll surface per foot of tractor travel was calculated. In these tests the surface of the wood rolls was smooth and polished; that of the steel rolls was smooth but not polished; that of the knurled steel was a diamond knurl cut approxi- mately 1/32 of an inch in the steel; while that of the rubber was smooth but of such a nature as to offer some friction to lint cotton. The average length of a test was approximately 1800 feet, which was large enough to include all conditions in the field and would indicate what might be expected in harvesting several acres. Where tests were made on the PROGRESS, IN STUDY OF MECHANICAL. HARVESTING OF COTTON 15 same varieties both at College Station and at Lubbock, the results for each variety were averaged. Consequently, the data shown in Table 2 may be taken as an indication of what may be obtained in mechanical harvesting of these varieties at either location. The results for the Du- cona* variety are the average of two years at College Station and one year at Lubbock. Data on the Lone Star variety’ include two years’ results obtained at College Station, while those of Clark and Kubela are for one year at Lubbock. Effect of Roll Materials and Surfaces: The rubber rolls, which have been used as a standard of comparison, harvested at high roll speed? 96.8 per cent of the cotton from Ducona, 95.5 per cent from Lone Star, 99.2 per cent from Clark and 99.7 per cent from Kubela (Table 2). The knurled steel rolls gave an effic- iency of 96.2 per cent in harvesting Ducona and 97.0 per cent for Lone Star. The steel rolls harvested 95.3 per cent from Ducona, and 86.3 from Lone Star, while the wood rolls harvested 92.0 per cent of-Du- cona, and 90.5 per cent of Lone Star. In ‘harvesting Clark and Kubela-the rubber rolls gave the highest efficiency, with steel next, and wood lowest. The percentages given for high r01] speed indicate that there is Fig‘. 9.1’ Roll Meter or Counter used to _ _ _. _ _ measure the lee: travel of the SUYKHCQ of I10 significant dIffQTGIICG 1n the Qf- the stripping rolls on b' gh theTeX as Station» ficiencylof rubber and knurled Steel Harvester and the Roll Type Sled Harvester. rolls in harvesting Ducona and Lone Star cotton. The data do show, how- ever, that steel rolls are better than wood but that they are not as efficient as rubber or knurled steel rolls. The results with the different roll materials for low and medium roll speeds, with a few exceptions, are quite similar to those obtained with the high roll speed (Table 2). Effect of Roll (Peripheral) Speeds: A study of the data shown in Table 2 shows that, in most cases, the highest percentage of the cotton was harvested with the high roll speed. In one or two instances low roll *Ducona is a new type of cotton which is being bred especially for mechanical harvesting and is the result of crossing the Durango and Wacona varieties. p TThe different roll speeds were obtained by using drive sprockets of different sizes. 16 BULLETIN NO, 51.1, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION dflomflwcou 30G 001mm?» ha 0005.00 WW3 m0E0=n0> wn0n0mmmw 00300020: Cw wflmhwvda 00.09am? =03?» v0.0 00000 $500.5 050m 05 00m 000.0050 =0n m0 =0>9B 000m E nofimuusfi 0P5 : = _ 0.00 :3 2. :0 00.0 5. _ 0.00 Ema 00. 2.3m 0.2 m: >0. mam 0.0.0 mm. _ 3a 00A 10. 000B >00 00.0 00. 0.00 $0 0w. _ 0.00 m: 3.. 53am _ "Q0300 $005M _ 0.2 £0 00. fig 52H 00. Q0 wHA 00. 08w 0.20 3.0 m0. 08m mm.“ m0. _ 0.3 E4 m0. 0003 0.00 00.0 00. v.00 20.0 0w. . w? E3 $0. 0093M _ “Q0300 x006 _ 0.5 £0 2A 0.00 2.0 i: .1 H0000 0255M 0.00 $0 rflé p.00 00.0. Ne; 0.00 2.0 w». 300w 0.20 00.0 m: 0.00 00.0 E. 0.30 . $4 2.. @003 0.00 _ $0 _ w: 3a _ 3.0 mo; 0.? _ E4 E. 000050. "c0300 000m. Qcoq N60 05.0 2a S; 3.0 mo; 0.00 :3 ow. =00? wfiuflmvw 0.00 £0 v04 0.8 00A m0. Z0 ~04 2.. 300w 9N0 00.0. 8A 0.3 3.0 N». 0.00 Nwé Cm 0003 0.00 00.0 EMA >60 00.0 00. Em MFA 2.. n0anfim _ "c0300 mnousfi 0 000008 hofifiwwgpawo 25080 MOWNMNMMQMQ 2.0.8.00 howwwwwa \ wwwwwww; 00M 000w 00m wwmwwww; 3% 000m 00m wmwwflumw; $0 000m 00m m0 0o m0 =00 0.000 00m 000.350 =00 e000 00m 000.0050 =0» e000 00M 00.3.50 =00 .00 05M mo =0>05 000m mo =0>05 000m we =0>05 000m 000mm =00 00E 000mm =0» E5002 @0000 =00 30A 0000mm =3 005$ 0.0 10000000 :2?» 0=eu 0505.50 w: 01E: 000.33%. u: nuzomfimufl d Baum. PROGRESS IN STUDY OF MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 17 speed was more efficient than high r01l speed. It is significant that in 7 of the 13 comparisons the medium roll speed was less efficient than either 10W or high roll speeds. Consequently, it may be concluded that v Table 3. Efficiency of the Texas Station Harvester when operated at three tractor speeds Feet travel of roll surface Tractor Per cent of gear Per foot of cotton tractor Per second harvested travel Low 1.02 2.32 96.0 Second .68 2.10 95.5 High .50 2.12 94.7 the differences in roll speed have as much influence on the percentage of cotton harvested as the material the rolls are made of and the con- dition of the surface of the roll. Effects of Forward Speeds: Tests were made to determine the efficiency of rubber stripping rolls as affected by the forward travel of the tractor when operated in low, second, and high tractor gears. fiA study 0f Table 3 shows that the harvester gave a greater efficiency when operated in 10w tractor gear and gradually decreased in efficiency when operated in second and in high tractor gears. It may be seen that the feet travel of the r011 surface, per foot of tractor travel, is highest in low gear and lowest in high gear, or an average of 1.02 feet for low, .68 feet for second, and .50 feet for high gear. There was an average de- crease of approximately 30 per cent in the feet travel 0f the roll surface per foot 0f tractor travel when the tractor was shifted from low gear to second gear. There was also a decrease of approximately 26 per cent when the tractor was shifted from second gear to high gear. The average percentage of the cotton harvested was 96.0, 95.5 and 94.7 per cent for low, second, and high tractor gears, respectively. Therefore, there seems to be a relationship between the feet travel of the roll surface per foot of tractor travel and the efficiency of the harvester. Relation of Roll Travel to Tractor Travel: Table 4 is made up from individual tests to show the differences and the percentagesof increase in feet travel of the roll surface per foot of tractor travel, and to show‘ the differences in the percentage of cotton harvested as influenced by these factors. In roll travel per foot of tractor travel there was an average 18 BULLETIN NO, 511, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION _ 0.0+ 0.0» 8. mm. 0.1- =2 5. mm. 0.0+ 3.0 8. kw. 03m 0.0+ 3.» 0m. E. 0.7.. Tm» mm. pa. 3i ma“ 0w. mm. 000B 2+ 3» S. w». 04+ 3: 0w. ma. 0.0+ 0.2. 3. 3. 05%: . 00300 .w~w£5Vm :0 xuonnsfl ad 0000B _ _ 05+ 5mm 8. ma. 0.7T NNH _ 0w. w»... 0&1 Q3 3. ww. 08w 0.0+ 0m» m0. 2w. 0.0+ 0d» mm. .3. ~01 00w 3. mm. 0003 0.0+. 0.3 x0. 3. 3+ 0.3 _ 0w. 0m. 0.7+ 0.0» 3. 3. EAQQM :0..E00 x820 :0 xgnnfifl 0.0 300B _ »..»+ S.» 2.. Ho. 00+ 0.: 0w. Ho; 04+ 0%.. 3. 0w. 03w ma! 0.0m m0. 2. =61! 0.2 in ma. 00+ 0.0m 3. é. 000>P N.N.._| o3 0.0. g. @411 0.2 0w pa. 0.7+ m3 3. 0w. 3.30M 00.300 5.30:9 :0 xoonngn an 0000M. _ 3+ ma» 2. 5A 04+ Wmfi N04 S; 0.0+ 0.3 m». Ne: 08w H411 0% 2.. 2.: 00+ W: >0. 2A 0&1: 04m w». _ g. 000:5 3+ Q2 2.. 2.: 0.»! 0.2 2. 2.: 3i 3a S. k ma. 023:: :0$00 53w 0:0A :0 :0$w0m 000:8 0.0 300B \ A _ =H+ 0.3 ab. m1» 0.0+ 3w MBA _ NHA >A+ 2N 3. ma.» 08w 0.0+ mdm w: 3A NA+ 0.2 00A _ w»; 2+ 9mm w». 8.» 000:5 0:11 0% 2.. .3.» 06+ Nd» 2. 0 S.» 0.01 0.2 m». .3. $035M :0$00 .0:00:Q :0 :0S0»w 0m0=0O 00 0000B 000:0 000:0 0000 _ 000mm 000:» 000:0 2000mm =0» 000:0 =0» =0» 0000mm 000mm =0» =0» £00000 000:0 =0» =0» $2 »0>0 =0» 30A 00E. =0» E3008 =0» E3002 00:» =0» EE00E =0» 30A E5002 0mm: we E2 »0>0 »0>0 EEO0E 11K‘- \l|1 41 »0>0 33 M0 32 »0>0 t‘ l. 0039,50: sum: E :0»: =0 »0>0 :05 .5 00:w0>»0= E3005 Cm :0$00 m0 m0 =0>0»0. =0>0»0 »0»0.0»0 000m0>»0= m0 =0>0»0 H020»: E0003 :0S00 we we =0>0»;. $303 $000.3 =0» 0:00 »0: E 000w E =0 .000.» »0Q E5000 =0 000.» E v0 000.» »0Q 0:00 »00.. E 000.» E m0 000.» »0: m0 m00:0»0.»..=Q 00093:: 000.025 =0» 0:00 »0Q E 0000.55. 00005;. =0» w00:0»0.».=Q 000035 000.300 =0» 05M 0:00 »0.~ m0 E30»: 000M w00:0»0.»=Q 0:00 »0n= 00 =0>0.G. 000m 0:00 »0.m we =0>0»0 000k 0000.00 w000Qm 0000mm =0» 00E 0:0 30H m0 fiomiwmEoU =0» =04: 0:0 E300»: we EOwTfiNQSOU =0» EE00E 0:0 32 we :0w=»0QE0O m=0» 00 00:»: 0:30.050 m0 5:20:00 05 :0 000.30 0:0 0:0 3.50.5 .3000»: we 000w .5: mouwhizm =0» 0:0 m0 $20.5 000w 0:0 we :0£».5E0Q .0 030B PROGRESS IN STUDY OF MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 19 increase of approximately 23 per cent of medium roll speed over low speed; an increase of approximately 13 per cent‘ of high over medium r011 speed; and an increase of approximately 33 per cent of high over low roll speed for the three kinds of rolls and for all varieties harvested. A careful study of Table 4 shows that in 9 of the 15 comparisons the“ low roll speed harvested a higher percentage of the cotton than did the medium roll speed. When medium and high roll speeds are compared, the increase of high over medium speed was significant, since in 12 of the 15 comparisons the high roll speed gave an increase in the percentage of cotton harvested. In comparing the 10W and high roll speeds it is seen that the high roll speed gave an increase over low roll speed in the percentage of cottonharvested in 14 of the 15 comparisons made. CLEANING MECHANICALLY HARVESTED COTTON WITH COMMER- CIAL GIN EQUIPMENT AND WITH THE TEXAS STATION BUR EX- TRACTOR AND THE TEXAS STATION CYLINDER CLEANER In Texas Station Bulletin 452 detailed results are given of the cleaning and ginning of several varieties of cotton. The data shown in this publication deal with cotton cleaned on a Commercial Bur Extractor and Cleaner, Fig. 10. Ducona cotton harvested with the Texas Station Cotton Harvester after the burs and trash had been removed. A. Cotton cleaned with a commercial bur extractor and cleaner. I B. Cotton cleaned with the Texas Station Bur Extractor and Cylinder Cleaner. and also show the results of tests made on the Texas Station Cotton Bur Extractor and the Texas Station Cylinder Cleaner. Cleaning with a Commercial Bur Extractor and Cleaner: Table 5 shows that Lone Star cotton harvested with the Texas Station Harvester and $5.33 wmwfi ma $0 zwpno cwmn was wo>wm~ o5 fioawo>aws wwB 503cc n13 v53 m5 “S? d3 >nofi9~onw~ 3mw|w no wmcfiTw vim nwnwfio >aofiwaonwfi vwuwnwfififwflws Swfiw s33 uwnwwfl. cofioOw. 6mg Bnmwrwfi wowswEF amaze“ =3 E Ezwkzw; c389 63m 0&3. Son A33 wwuwmriwc COQBOQH wH\TH $112“ a O U w _ mam _ m? mé imw M22 .3 $2 8N $2 nwioosfi mm}; 2 Q w a E H mam $2 l Néw Hdvm .|. $5 m”... £2 niouflfl SSH E fl 2 H oém E2 l. o? 3Q I: $3 3m $2 $5 wcod .l v1 .1 Il Q2 M23 ..| 04w 3mm I. Nix $3 N2: wnoosfl 23H 2 i}: E Q w 2w Ndmm .\. 3% Wm? .|. w”? 32 N2: 18w wfloQ 23H 2 i}: SH A 3m n55 l $5 3% I 2S m2. Nmfi 18w Esq v 1 w o w 1a qqa = 1. a v M? .m.....D s A3 m? Mmmm w w. Maw. m 3w v3 w m? Qwwfi S"; m» E T m.» mmu. W8 mm.“ mm» W.» www wlmpw wwwp Sm. w? “m, mm. . Mm. mm ha; muoifw EWW u.o .... WH u a 1 1 a n. 1 e 9.1 Pa. d s d . W3 w ma, mwmw? “mum. aw s m” mm T? I: 1 i W3. w 3U. qHm w; 2a E w p m qm x¢@s wpm nofioo wwwm 2x20 20 BULLETIN NO. 511, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION HQGSQT- ‘GS HOHOQHaNQ Hfifl ~UmOHOEEOU Q HQ @330? coficu UOJUmQLQGQS maid woumo>uus %=HU@GQSOOS .m Omfiflhw 211 COTTON PROGRESS IN STUDY OF MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF 3% 3.8. .3 W8 3% $4 3.8 2.42 .32 : : 3% 3% 5 9mm N1; $4 3% mQwNH szfiafi ma: Nazism w? 5.3 Q4 S; 3mm fit Mwww $5 $2 : ad. Ami. 9m 3% £6” i. 8.3“ $8 Esswwfi “$5.3m cafioo swam osofl d? wNS m..." is $5 mmd 3.3 .32 $3 a a Wm“. :43 o.» 5m 3% m: 33 23 Swizz: : : \ Q: 2am ma gm 3.2 £4 mwaw 53 $2 33m wwzim a? firs. 2 Hdm 38 $3 3.2 3S .32 : Q2 3Q 1.. fig 3.3 3a wmfi ifi E5265 : N? Sig ad fix $9. 5a $42. i2 B2 fiiazm c0300 wcousfi ww>ofima mwidon muss v.53 mwczoa mwflsom 69,053 swans swap» stB fiwq swan». was swsom. wuss 933 wussoa séwnu did can main aQswQ Si»? fiwq Jmdfiw wid .5036». 20m Eon msss mo wuss we mp5s nwfifiw wwmnsfim mo 35M .760 nmm wwcuom i6“. swm nosuou uwow zswsO hOaOflHwNm Him iOmwflam MNNQR. Qiw Sam; @0531 iwfib? 5.300 @0wm0>.~.NS h=dnvmiflSOOE Ecuu 195E?- mama? u: ouaanounoa 1:: @5554 é 03am. _by the extractor when extracting Ducona cotton, and approximately L; 22 BULLETIN NO, 511, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION cleaned on a commercial bur extractor and cleaner classed strict low middling in 1932 and low middling in 1933. Hand-picked samples for the same year classed middling. Ducona cotton harvested and cleaned with the same equipment classed low middling in 1933 and strict g. ordinary in 1934. Fig. 10 shows how the 1934 seed cotton looked after it had passed through a commercial bur extractor and cleaner. Hand- picked samples for the same years classed strict low middling in 1933, and middling minus in 1934. The hand-picked cotton from which the sample was obtained in 1934, however, was cleaned on a small, hand- operated laboratory cleaner and ginned on an 8-saw laboratory gin, in stead of on standard gin equipment. Cotton harvested with the roll type sled and cleaned on a commercial bur extractor and cleaner classed low middling. i Cleaning Cotton with the Texas Station Bur Extractor: The cotton har- vested in 1934 with the Texas Station Harvester was run through the Texas Station Bur Extractor (Fig. 5) to remove the burs, green bolls, and leaves. Fig. 10 B shows how the seed cotton looked after being run through the bur extractor and the cylinder cleaner. Table 6 shows the various weights and percentages of cotton and waste in the stripped cotton har- vested in low, medium, and high roll speed tests for both Ducona and Lone Star cotton. An examination of the table reveals that approximately 42 to 44 per cent of trash, including burs, unopen green bolls, leaves, and dirt, was removed from the mechanically harvested cotton. It also shows that approximately 3 per cent of the seed cotton was left with the burs 0 per cent when extracting Lone Star cotton. Most of the cotton left with the burs was composed of small stained tags and of hard, knotty dry locks which were caused by insect injury to bolls before they opened. Such cotton when thrown in with the better cotton tends to lower the grade. All the unopen green bolls in the seed cotton were expelled with the burs, without being broken open. Cleaning Cotton with the Texas Station Cylinder Cleaner: The cotton harvested with the Texas Station Harvester and run through the Texas Station Bur Extractor, the results of which processes are‘ shown in Table 6, was given a final cleaning on the Texas Station Cylinder Cleaner (Fig. 6). The results of cleaning the seed cotton on the Texas Station Cylinder Cleaner are shown in Table 7. An average of approximately 11 per cent of dirt and trash was removed from the Ducona cotton, and of 14 per cent from the Lone Star cotton. This difference appeared to be due to the difference in the staple length of the two varieties. The Lone Star va- riety with a staple length of 31/32 inch cleaned better than the Ducona variety with a staple length of 1-1/32 inches. The Lone Star cotton appeared to be slightly cleaner and whiter than the Ducona cotton after passing through the cylinder cleaner. The average percentage of burs, dirt, and trash removed by both the Texas Station Bur Extractor and the Texas Station Cylinder Cleaner was approximately 50 per cent for Ducona, 23 PROGRESS IN STUDY OF MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON _ _ _ _ Ho» 36m Eli $4.; 5.3 _ 3d 225 2Z3 $2 : : __ w 3 5 3 msefi 3.3 24w k $2 56m 5.3 E5358 33m uviscvm _ Q3 8H5 NEE 5.3 3% _ .23 . 3% $3 AME : ~25 k E A w fi 3 Q 3 mm 3 5.: $3 __ m3. 53 $41“ 5:503 uunnnfi flofiou nwaw onofl _ 1S “#8 .32 Q95 i wfiw _ £6 msfi Qmwé 2mm: : : _ w? 3.3 n33 fifi: wwww _ .56 9H5“ 31$ E333 : : \ _ Q3 $23 5S Nqfi _ $5 _ 2E. 23m 8% B3 w»: 335M _ W? Si; o6: 5.3 Ngw _ 3w 3S 225 2M3 : _ Al? _ 3.3 Qvfi 2.2 5% _ 3w 3.5 36w SE35 : N»); __ 9H A m 3% __ ~39. __ i? $3 _ Qwmw __ 5S. $3 _ fiwfi. B3 uonnflfi flouuou wcousfi O aoflwwfio “M1558 } vo>oczwn _ flofiou ©0>o§wa l Magda? 955mm? awwcflzu swag» wax Gofioo swan». _ www... swan» uwwwn onowwn _ ca.» nopowa» 95w :< _ wwmnrfiw was _ wwnxflO wnn noun-ow cofiou 609G Zen .22: _ @296 -5 :5 _ i5 _ t5 Haw 80w =om Ho 2Q wifim é >2 uw>occ , # 10H smwfi r _.wo "Emu swam mo mwfifiofi E 053mg mo acme nmh I mo wwnfion E “Emma? ufiuwfiwfl 5m 5.33m 2.5 no uouuwufino. P25 v5 ca: via HOaMOPHQm . zofifiw of :23 wfimmtrfin: ma? “a5 5.33 EPG uoauoa uwwifimw cciwum 33 m: c2155.. 3mm? w: ouuflnvuuon us.» $5.54 4. 03am. $513134; x; A 24 BULLETIN NO, 511, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION fifiiwmmv waowwn wwmnw £3 i5 wwuownpxw com? n55 mwB coupes comm mam; mAw __ i: __ >2. NE: 2.2 __ i; __ if _ m.“ w Am. u 3. 2A 5.» 5.» n , wwnaw>< “Kw _ Al; _ 3N _ 3AA 3.2 _ WE _ 3.3 _ ww _ mm. _ 5 ma. N3 .22 1mm wSH _ 2mm wméfi 23A v.3 35A W 5N P mu. _ wd 3. 06m Hod mmmw k5 _ 2mm QHAA Q23 R8 A51: __ A.” m S. _ wA 3. Em 2d mi Mm: _ 2Q 2C: £3 W3 $52 _ mA _ ma. _ wd 3A ABM 3w mm Mm NW2 _ “Wm _ n m. u . . . . A A. we N A 3w 3d mew P2 mmm Alto mFNEH _ h?“ i fix? _ mfi _ mm. * o6 3A mam $5 _ a __ E cm. H . w. H6. MNJH Ndm i? mam v.5“ __ NTN wwd 8AA A Aflmm A542 ~_ ad __ 3. E m6 AMA ma» 5d RMMQU HQH% HEUU Hmm M@AH§OA% mwidonm m@g5nvn% E Q€QU kQQ m@:5.0m #H~UU Mwg mU=50fi% QQUU HQ@ mwfldonm “ZMUQ HQN% M@Q§O@ E23 i!‘ 5:520 35mg AMHNAAQ Mwmmwfimflw KSAMEAAMWAMA Amwfiwwfl QWMM.“ 3E woflmwvflvwfiv ha @3022 Ion pwfijw. wwnmmzv a5 i5 Eon.“ 120B . mien cmwaw fiwé in. ES fifia .3 QSAQm _ E8 Aha. aém zofiou cwmw |xmm him 5.33m mama's us» h: x3535 uowcflmo ncflfim mnxwa. o5 win .3395 coficu wogmguu: h=NUmGNJQQE we wflnfiwm m-Cq-Oflumw 59G uoizuou 3mm? w: oaficouuwa was azzciaw .w o-Aau. PROGRESS IN STUDY OF MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 25 and 51 per cent for Lone Star. The cotton from both varieties classed strict low middling (Table '7). Hand-picked samples, cleaned and ginned on small laboratory equipment, classed middling minus (Table 5). An average 0f about one per cent less trash was collected in harvesting the cotton with the rubber rolls at the three roll speeds than with the knurled surfaced steel rolls (Table 7). Special Tests with the Texas Station Bur Extractor and the Cylinder Cleaner: In 10 special tests on the Texas Station Bur Extractor and on the Texas Station Cylinder Cleaner, the results of which are shown in Table 8, it is seen that the total burs removed from the stripped cotton amounted to 37.5 per cent. The percentage of seed cotton left in the burs was 2.9 per cent. The commercial bur extractor on the other hand left 1.5 per cent of the seed cotton with the burs (Table 5). The percentage of cotton left with the burs by the Texas Station Bur Extractor could have been reduced by making certain adjustments which observations showed during these tests would be beneficial. In the 10 special tests (Table 8) with some miscellaneous lots of me- chanically harvested cotton that were not thoroughly dry when run through the bur extractor, an average of 18.1 per cent of dirt and trash was re- moved by the Texas Station Cylinder Cleaner. In tests shown in Table 7, where the cotton was in the proper condition for cleaning, an average of 12 to 14 per cent of the dirt and trash was removed by the cylinder cleaner. In this instance the bur extractor had previously removed a higher per- centage of the dirt and fine trash with the burs than was possible in the case of the 10 special tests. Ducona cotton cleaned on the Texas Station Bur Extractor and on the Texas Station Cylinder Cleaner in 1934 classed two grades higher than Ducona cotton extracted and cleaned the same year with available commer- cial bur extracting and cleaning equipment (Tables 5 and 7). RELATION OF VARIETAL CHARACTERISTICS TO EFFICIENCY OF HARVESTING AND CLEANING MACHINERY In 1932 at Lubbock, the Texas Station Harvester was used to compare the harvesting qualities of seven varieties of cotton that appeared to have favorable characteristics for mechanical harvesting. Three of these varieties were selected and planted in 1933 for tests on a larger scale. No tests were made at Lubbock in 1934 on account of the poor crop. Tests were made at College Station with two varieties in 1933 and with eight varieties in 1934. Results at Lubbock: Table 9 shows that of the seven varieties harvested in November 1932, the Ducona (Fig. 11) gave the highest efficiency, 99 per cent. This strain of cotton has short fruiting branches, and very little of it is lost by the harvester. Kubela also has relatively short fruiting and vegetative branches and gave good results in stripping. Clark cotton gave good results in the test, ranking third in efficiency (Table 9). 26 BULLETIN NO, 511, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION _ N60 __ Q3 M55 ma £4 m4 .34 mdN if 5% 3a 3.5. ma.» $2.2m Q5 Ymm no.2" Nd 3A wa Na. mNN wfii 215 HHA E23 3A Em QGMAQE 9mm _ M25 $3 m6 QYN NJ 3. W5 23 33 Hv. 3d» 3. 2:. cowsmhwm $3 _ v3 53 m; 3. m.N $4 13 8.3 $23 2.. Elm 5. wcwfii .33 Q5 N06»... .3 8d N!“ B. NAN 2% omdN mm. 5.3 3. .02 U\Q 223M v.3 QEQ 2.3 N.» 3A 9N 84 mam NMTNH 3.3 MN. 22a. 3. x36 33 _ 1S Maw?“ _ .2 S...“ N4 3. ZN 3E n15 3. 32m 3 ~=8=Q _ 25o uom usoo pom 2.56m 36a mum mwasom 28o uom mwczom Emu 3m mwcsom mwcsom mwcflom wwnsom mwnmom mimosa: wfinoui wine mnmumo.» ha m: nofiou c030» L2: .3 nofiou is: nwww§> wopwmzruws woumfiiws voow “can. pwm 3&3? “awe uom “E335 ufiwu 3m 3M3? @039, wasonu 13mg waowwn and? no _ 3o?» mo in: 5o Jflawm wcsonw .533. 129w E2» 8520 8.595 =o . 1.53. mo acme 3m s35 was film 935m was mp8s 3mm cofioo 10mm Nmmw Gm Jooai-A 8G uouwozafl 5.33m‘ MNNO-H 01m a i. nuclei? o5 3 muflwmuofi-uuazu 133.3.» ac mafia-om 6 05am. PROGRESS. IN STUDY OF MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 27 Although the other varieties gave relatively high percentages of efficiency for the harvester, they had certain undesirable characteristics, such as long fruiting andvegetative "branches, lack of storm resistance, and weak bolls which had a tendency to crush easily and would not snap off readily, all of which caused a higher percentage of cotton to be lost in harvesting. Harvesting tests in 1933 showed that the average efficiency of the machine was highest with Kubela, 97.7; was second highest with Clark, 96.7; and third highest with Ducona, 94.3 per cent. The plants put on a late growth and top crop, particularly in the case of the Du- cona variety. A high percentage of the bolls matured and opened Fig. 11. The Texas Station Cotton Har- vester harvesting 99 per cent of Ducona cot- ton at Lubbock. early on the Ducona, thereby subjecting the open cotton to severe winds which caused it to string out of the boll, a condition which lowered the Fig. 12. View showing a section of the six acre field of Ducona cotton at College Station in 1933. efficiency of the machine. The Clark and Kubela varieties opened early but the cotton did not become strung out and, consequently, made possible a higher efficiency in the operation of the machine. 28 BULLETIN NO, 511, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION éwwnw 29A 55:65 LN U55 Awwm wsooww Cm NCTWNhQQO HOMUNMH 05a owdfi QMQB $23. L L L L L L _ _ L A E A LL A2 L 3w L 3.. L i; $2 Adm Ew N.» L AK. L is L 3A; L 3N L 3A L NAN L 3A LL A4,. 9D QABAQA A AA A L m2 L m3. L 3. Q2 3N N3 2.2 AA L As. L 0AA“ L $2 L 2A L A; L 2A L SA L 2A 0E 32?! L L NQAA AA A wL O2 L $2 L mm. L N3. 3m A25 £2 3 L 2. _ AAA L 3w L 2A L 2 L 2A L 2A L .8330 wbwsm ~31 AA A LL 3a LL m3; LL 2A. L Adv 23A QB E2 m.” L 2. .22.. $.32 L 2a L :2 EA. _ SA L A2625 . ~38 A>A A mLL S; LL 5.3 LL 3d L Q2. 5.2 EB 3.3.. 3 L AAA gdm £3 L fir. Em o? L SA L A26 A AA A LL mm» LL AA. 2 L 2A AS» E 2A A13 £2 AE L EA 2.3 $2 L NE L 8m A5 5N AA AA EBA A>A A mLL S; L 2.2 L 8. A»? 23A m2 2.8 AA L 3. 2.2 3.3 L m2 m5 o2. L 2A 52m 96A PGHNSNOU A AA A mLL 2.3 £2 2A 2....“ $2 m2 SA» ma 2. 3AM 2AA L s: A2 ALE. L 2A L 28m 26A 223A $22: 2.2m A. 2A 2A 2. 2A w» 2A m». 2A 2A 2A LQAQ 2:5 2P... 89A - L uww l‘ l! \ 1. L. L u a Wm m...“ .d m L . . L um .2 AA pd A S? m? M AAA m film Am, qA MAW m5 22AM? F q A m A mmm A1 A2 AAA m? HE “AAA m“ L A; 1A PM. A25 w m. WW2 3. wfi m2. w.» w? “.2 m2 FHA mm. L2 mm. Aw AL a I {.1 I m6. all. u a .01 Iuo 0.11 all 1 1. u L JI a m}... AAA, WM. Aw pmm AMA WWW 2.2mm» m LA» W m, ML A mm Al. 3A S n2 1 w . u u u. p m4. U Avmmfilqefi-cu MO Mina»? flifi Min-mama: fiwumflaaooi o5 Ow moimiouuauazo Agoifi, m0 flowed-cum 4;. vmn-UF PROGRESS IN STUDY OF MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 29 Results at College Station: Tests on two varieties of cottoniwere ‘made in 1933 with the Texas Station Harvester. Ducona (Fig. 12) gave an average of 4 to 6 per cent higher efficiency in harvesting than Lone Star. This difference is attributed to the difference in type of plant, the Lone Star variety having longer fruiting and vegetative branches than Ducona. In 1934 eight varieties were harvested to determine the effect of varietal characteristics on the efficiency of the Texas Station Harvester. Table 1O shows that Ducona and Gorham’s Lone Star each gave the highest ef- ficiency in percentage of cotton harvested, 96.6 per cent. The fact that both varieties gave equalefficiencies in 1934 may be attributed to dry weather conditions which retarded the growth and size of the Lone Star plants, enabling the machine to harvest a higher percentage of the cotton of this variety than would have been possible under normal growing con- ditions. Kubela D/ C 2-1 strain was second with 95.1 per cent, and Roger’s Cluster third with 95.0 per cent. The plants of the HX variety with an efficiency of 93.3 per cent had wide spreading branches which caused con- siderable loss of cotton by the harvester. In some cases fruiting branches pulled off at the axis of the plant. Kelly’s Lone Star had an efficiency of 91.5 per cent and a good snapping boll, but the long fruiting and vege- tative branches offset the good qualities and caused considerable loss of cotton in harvesting. The Clark va- riety had the lowest harvesting ef- ficiency, 90.7 per cent (Table 10). The table shows that several of the varieties, Kelly’s Lone Star, HX, Clark, and Roger’s Cluster, had poor stands caused by dry weather. The wider spacing between the plants caused many of them to de- velop longer fruiting and vegeta- tive branches, which influenced their harvesting qualities and low- ered the percentage ojf efficiency. Percentage of Green Leaves Har- vested: Several tests on 125-foot lengths of row were made in 1932 to determine the percentage of green leaves that were being har- vested with the cotton when the Texas Station Harvester was op- _ _ Fig. 13. Cotton plants after the Texas BTHlLQd 1H lOW, SQCOIId, and lllgll Station Cotton Harvester had removed the __ - cotton, at College" Station. An average of tractor gears‘ The data 1n Table 16.5 per cent of the green leaves was re- 11 shows that on a dry basis an moved from the plants when they_were in full foliage at the time of harvesting, Sep- avereige of 15.9, per cent of the tember 1932. total amount of leaves on the plant was collected with the stripped cotton when the tractor was operated in low gear, 16.4 per cent when in second gear, and 17.1 per cent when in high gear (Fig. 13). The data 30 BULLETIN NO, 511, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SN. I..NN _N.§ I»? NS INN N5 NNN N5. NN. N». INN _ S; _N.3 _N.:. _NN.NN _ 3d _NN.N NNNN NN.N NN. _NN NN _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ NNNNNZN. Ni __N.NN __N.NN __m.3_ NNN __N.NN N5 NNN NNN NN. NN. NNN _ w: Ci Tl; __NN..NNTN.N __NN.N N1: 3N NN. _NN NN Q3. _I.NN _I..:. __ w; NNN TAN N5 ZN NN.N NN. S. NNN <5 TN. “NNN TNNIZNNN __NN..N 5: NN.N S. TN NN paom noauwfi .32 E uoamo>uwn 55>? W5. _N.N.N CNN NNN _N.NN TL: N5 N.NN N5. E. NN. SN _ Ni _N.3 Sac. _N.N.N1NN.N _NN.N _N.N.NN SN S. NN 3. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ NNNNNZ NNN. __H.mm Ti __N.NN __N..NN NE S; EN $4. S. NN. NNN NNN “NNN TNN T1: NNN NNN :12 NNA S. NN NN. NNN. _I..NN “NNN __N.NN __N.NN N5 N5 Q3 N? NN. NN. NNN N2 T3; __H.E_ __NN.NN __ NNN _:..N NNNN NN.N _NN. NN NN _ 58m noaosa» wcoowm E 3395a: c055 NNN __N.NN__N.NN _N.NN 7N5. NE .2: NNN SN NN. NN. NNN NNN __N.NN __N.E Tmdm NNN NN.N .32 NNN woé TNNN mm w aw>< N5. __N.NN __N.NN NNN EN NNN NNN NNN NNN N3 NN. 3mm Ni TI: NNN “NNAN NNN NNN NNNN Gd NNN NNN E NNN __N..NN __N.NN S; NS NNN Ni 12. NZ. NN. NN. NNN NN __N.NN NNN TNNN NN; NN.N NNNN NNN 2: NNN E HQQM noaodu» 32 G.- won-maids mung A L A O_0 3 d 0 8 0 3 a 3 0 8 B 1.41. u. u..0 o 1 I o 1 M. L 0 1 dl o 1 m. L 0 1 M. a 11 I. NNN NN NN NN NN mN Nm NN MN Nm NN. NN NN N N... MN NN NNNNNN P u; u u n. 1 u P 4 I u _P .4 u P .4 I u _P .4 P PNN. woflmaoh we “Emu awm 85x2 E 0.25205 wo>w2 Mctiw aways n95»; mwiwmfl um? mw>wm~ pa? we 00.3.25 =0» 0min. MO ammo MUM haw MO ammo 5m MO mfiiiOfi Cm Nauru? m0 “Emu Nwm mwcsoQ Cm ZEN? MO ~Q>dhu Nwuh Hw-hQHQQU 95530:.- #0:» Ufifl mvflamfl>hfli mo>ao~ $00k“ m9 ONQuGOQHONH .2 0112.. 81 PROGRESS IN STUDY OF MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON in? Q3 2. 3. 2. 2: $4 i Q3 i Q3 _. Ni" _ 5 flu 2a i _ _ _ vmauo>3 9E. i n46 8. S. 3. $4 i w? i W: i Sm i wwm 2 3 3N i i awmm uouudnu AME E wwumoiwndfi 55>? W5 i #3 3. w»: 2. fig w? i 9M3 3w _ 2:. i Sq. _ w» 3m _ i i i _ wuwn0>< ma“. i 1mm I. 2w. ma. ufiw $3 i WE 3w i 2w i 3 i 2. 5m 2i. i m5 8. 2: 3. m: S; i w»: W3 i 3m i Q i m» S» \ nwom x3095 wcoowm E voumw>nwn 55>? Q; i v.2 2. 3.. 8.. 3A _ wmfi i Q: _ gm i m3 i 2 i mu .8.” _ i i i i omduo>< 13 i N8 S. m». wH. £4 $4 i . Q3 2w m5 i 3 3 ma“ _ 9% i 3a g. 3. 3. S. Q: Y3 i 9mm H? i 8 Nu m3 i ucbo now i ucoo pom $250M mwcsom mwasom mwcsom wwcnom $60 5m acme Em nwnfizZ i ponfisZ nonisz nwAQEZ nwww uouomup 33 E woumwza: 52;? . i onsuwi i i ounfimfifim wnflads TE; i T33 393 SwBi i T25. i LE 1cm i Tine £82 oazuwfi i 0.5.38 Ciao conoflb. flonocp opflpxfiawi wasfimfi oafiawfifim wasawfi i wash: i 325MB i mafia Go Fuck i LE i flwmoflb. W55 i 5.955. GQQOGD. cwmoaD. cwaocD i cwnO v.29» _ iwQO . i comocD cwQO i i , , flvnoflb. i i . i i wpnpwmoflwifiwnni. mwwo nwm mwcfiowlifi fifimmmokw i mien we 25:02, E Emma? wion wo QCQQ pal mflon mo nwnafiz @5556 onsamwoi .505 win £33 ma»: GQO.~& E wouuvico 215 zone-E Ouladii: Uflfi 955$: we owaanouuwm. dfi 03am. 32 BULLETIN NO, 511, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION also shows that for the three tractor gear speeds there was an average of 71.6 per cent moisture in the leaves harvested with the cotton. Percentage of Moisture in Mature and Immature Green Bolls: The green bolls collected in the green leaf tests on 125-foot sections of row were counted, weighed wet, then dried and weighed again to determine the per- centage of moisture in both the mature and immature green bolls, Table 12 shows that in the unopen but mature green bolls for the three tractor gear speeds there was an average of 60.8 per cent moisture, while in the unopen immature green bolls for the three tractor gear speeds there was an average of 71.7 per cent moisture present at the time they were harvested. _ Influence of Varietal Characteristics on the Cleaning Qualities of Me- chanically Harvested Cotton: When extracting the burs, and cleaning the seed cotton, it was observed that Gorham’s Lone Star left 1.7 per cent of the cotton in the burs and cleaned well enough to class strict low middling (Table 1Q). The Ducona cotton was extracted with comparative ease and ran through the extractor quickly, with 3.5 per cent of the cotton left as tags in the burs. It also did not appear to machine as much as some of the other varieties. The Kubela D/C 2-1 and HX varieties were noticeably difficult to extract, and considerable cotton was left as tags in the burs (Table 10). PROGRESS IN DEVELOPING VARIETIES OF COTTON TO MEET THE NEEDS OF MECHANICAL HARVESTING Results of breeding work prior to 1932 are reported in Texas Station Bulletin452, pages 54 to 58. During 1932, 1933, and 1934, numerous addi- tional crosses were made at College Station and Lubbock between Ducona (a new type) and several other varieties to further improve its yield and boll characteristics. The resultant hybrid strains were compared in har- vesting trials with the existing types of commercial varieties which had certain promising characteristics for mechanical harvesting. These studies have been made both at College Station and at Lubbock. Since climatic conditions are different at these points, an excellent opportunity is afforded to study the influence of these conditions on the growth and development of the various strains of cotton and their effect on the efficiency of har- vesting machinery. In 1933 a six-acre block of Ducona cotton was grown at College Station (Fig. 12) and a two-acre block at Lubbock. These plantings were used in harvesting trials with the Texas harvester. In these trial tests Ducona gave a higher efficiency in harvesting at College Station than did Lone Star, the only variety with which it was compared in 1933. Lone Star has proved to be one of the better commercial varieties tested. Even though Ducona gave satisfactory results in these trials, the strain is in need of further improvement. Its desirable‘ characteristics include a good quality of 1-1/ 16 inch staple, an absence of excessive vegetative growth and ear- ' v d. 1..-.....4.. ~..,......_........<_...H- ‘ I s‘ i -" if” l lzriculiural & Mechanical Coueev H‘ l “m College Station. 18m PROGRESS IN STUDY OF MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 33 liness of maturity, with a more determinate fruiting habit than ordinary varieties. Its yield, percentage of lint, ‘and boll characters, however, need improving, and breeding work is in progress to bring about these added improvements. In 1934 a new series of crosses was made between Ducona and five better yielding varieties possessing high percentages of lint, semi-cluster fruiting habit, and storm-proof bolls, in an effort to combine the desired qualities in the new hybrid strains. These strains will be back-crossed, inbred, and selected, in order to obtain a strain that will meet the requirements. Of the 170 inbred hybrid strains of cotton from the crosses grown in 1934, a number of the more promising will be planted in 1935 for harvest- ing trials. ll In the breeding work at Lubbock, where the growing season is shorter and climatic conditions generally are different from those at College Station, particular attention is being given_to developing a type of cotton that will mature early enough to escape damage by frost, as this will reduce the amount of “bollie” cotton. Other desirable features being sought for that section include a plant type having a semi-cluster fruiting habit with the first fruiting branch borne fairly high off the ground (since the cotton is planted in listed furrows); a plant type with storm-proof bolls to pre- vent losses from windstorms occurring during the time the bolls are open- ing; and bolls having a long peduncle or stem, which will cause the bolls to hang down, thereby reducing weather damage and also creating a ten- dency for the peduncle to snap off at the base of the boll rather than at the point of attachment to the stalk. In addition to these desirable features the ideal type of cotton should possess high yielding ability, a lint turn out of at least 37 per cent, and a good quality of one-inch staple. l Many of the ordinary varieties and strains studied in the past seven years have varied widely in respect to storm-resistance, ranging from 63.3 to 93.9 per cent estimated relative storm-proofness. Much of the cotton on the ground has shed from the open bolls before all the bolls on the plant have opened. It is necessary for practically all the bolls on the plant to be open before stripper type harvesters such as the Texas Station Harvester can operate satisfactorily. The fact that 99 per cent of the cotton on the plant of a particular variety may be harvested mechanically, does not necessarily reflect the true merit of the variety from the standpoint of its suitability to mechanical harvesting, since this percentage is affected by factors such as storm-resistant qualities and uniformity of opening. This is also no indication of the amount and kinds of trash harvested with the cotton, or of the cleaning qualities of the cotton. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to express their appreciation to the Department of Agricultural Engineering for the use of a tractor and for cotton provided for experimental purposes in 1932 and 1933; and to the Agricultural Farm of the A. & M. College of Texas for the use of‘ a tractor and for cotton 34 BULLETIN NO. 511, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION provided in 1934. They also wish to thank Mr. G. T. McNess, superinten- dent of the Main Station farm, for his cooperation and assistance in growing the cotton being bred for mechanical harvesting, and for the use of the Station equipment in cleaning and ginning the mechanically harvested cotton. Thanks are also due Prof. J. G. Powers, Official and Licensed Cotton Classer of the Department of Textile Engineering, for classing samples of all the cotton concerned in these studies. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This Bulletin reports the results obtained in the study of the mechanical harvesting of cotton and describes improvements made on the Texas Sta- tion Cotton Harvester during the period 1932 to 1934 to increase its ef- ficiency. A complete description is also given of the construction of an experimental roll-type sled harvester, of a bur extractor, and of a cylinder cleaner. Tests made in 1932 with the roll-type stripper sled to determine what effect the angle of the rolls, the size of the rolls, and the speed at which they revolve would have on the efficiency of stripping rolls constructed of wood and steel, indicated the following: ' 1. Stripping rolls made from steel or wood, having a slightly roughened. surface, gave a high efficiency when used to harvest cotton. 2. Stripping rolls 2-3/ 16 inches in diameter were more efficient than rolls 3 inches in diameter. 3. The most efficient angle for operating stripping rolls 56 inches in length was between 25 and 30 degrees with the ground. 4. A study of the relation of roll travel to-tractor travel showed that a higher percentage of the cotton was harvested when the roll travel was faster than the tractor travel. - When stripping rolls made of wood, steel, and rubber, were used in the Texas Station Harvester at three roll speeds, and set at an angle of ap- proximately 28 degrees, the highest percentage of the cotton was har- vested with the highest roll speed. Similar results were secured when rubber rolls and knurled surfaced steel rolls were compared at different speeds. The rubber rolls operated at high roll speed harvested 96.8 per cent with Ducona cotton and 95.5 per cent with Lone Star cotton, while the knurled surfaced steel rolls harvested 96.2 per cent with I)ucona and 97.0 per cent with Lone Star. Rubber stripping rolls harvested a higher percentage of cotton than Wood or steel stripping rolls. There was no significant difference in the efficiency of rubber rolls and knurled surfaced steel rolls. Comparisons of the effect of roll speeds indicate that a higher per- centage of the cotton is harvested with a high roll speed." When the effects of tractor speeds were compared, the average percent- age of the cotton harvested was 96.0, 95.5 and 94.7 per cent for low, second, and high tractor gear speeds, respectively. The feet travel of the roll sur- face per foot of tractor travel was 1.02 feet for low, .68 feet for second, and .50 feet for high tractor gear speeds. PROGRESS IN STUDY OF MECHANICAL HARVESTING OF COTTON 35 The relation of r011 travel to tractor travel was found to be an influencing factor on the efficiency of stripping rolls, since there was an average in- crease of approximately 23 per cent in roll travel per foot of tractor travel, of medium roll speed overlow roll speed. An increase of approxi- mately 13 per cent of high over medium roll speed; and an increase of approximately 33 per cent of high over low roll speed. In 9 of 15 com- parisons the low roll speed harvested a higher percentage of the cotton than the medium roll speed; in 12 of 15 comparisons the high roll speed was more efficient than the medium roll speed; and in 14 of 15 comparisons the high roll speed was more efficient than the low roll speed. Mechanically harvested cotton cleaned on the Texas Station Bur Ex- tractor and on the Texas Station Cylinder Cleaner in 1934 removed burs, unopen green bolls, dirt, and trash, including leaves and stems, amounting to approximately 50 per cent of the weight of the harvested cotton from the Ducona variety, and 51 per cent from the Lone Star variety. Ducona cotton cleaned on the Texas Station Bur Extractor and on the Texas Station Cylinder Cleaner in 1934, classed two grades higher than Ducona cotton extracted and cleaned the same year with available com- mercial bur extracting and cleaning equipment. The efficiency of the Texas Station Cotton Harvester was greatly in- fluenced by the varietal characteristics of the different varieties harvested. In tests with a number of varieties of cotton at College Station and Lubbock in 1932, 1933, and 1934, the highest efficiency, 96.6 to 99.0 per cent, was obtained in harvesting varieties in which the plants had short fruiting branches, short vegetative branches, and storm-resistant bolls. An average of 16.5 per cent of the green leaves was removed from the plants in full foliage at the time of harvesting the cotton in September. The leaves in the cotton contained an average of 71.6 per cent moisture. There was 60.8 per cent moisture in the unopen mature green bolls, and 71.7 per cent moisture in the unopen immature green bolls that were collected with the green leaves in harvesting the cotton. Satisfactory progress through hybridization and selection has been made during the three years 1932, 1933, and 1934 both at College Station and Lubbock in the breeding work to develop high-yielding strains of cotton that would be well adapted to mechanical harvesting. The type being sought should possess storm-proof bolls, a relatively high percentage of lint of good staple, a minimum of vegetative growth, a more determinate fruiting habit, and earliness of maturity. The breeding work is being done both at College Station and Lubbock. Since climatic conditions are different at these points an excellent opportunityqis afforded to study the influence of these conditions on the growth and development of the various strains of cotton in relation to mechanical harvesting.